Examining my motives!

1/29/2011

In light of a recent email that I received, I felt it was necessary to explain my motives for how I build my Black Templars armies (or any army for that matter) and how I run Implausible Nature. It seems this is a continuing topic of conversation, though most of the time it players is poking fun, some people are genuinely angry with the way I handle the BT codex.

You could just read my Site Primer to get the gist of what I'm going to say here, but repetition is the key to ensuring information is retained. So I'll do it again.

It is not in my personality to keep all of my experiences, knowledge, and opinions to myself. I'm not selfish. That is one of the reasons I built Implausible Nature. Right around when I joined the online community, I discovered the distinct lack of resources available for the Black Templars. I felt that this was a tragedy and needed to be rectified.

Over the past year and a half, I've done my best to teach players how to improve their game-play using the Black Templars. Sometimes, its as simple as improving their list building skills. Other times, its more on the tactical side of running the army itself. Whatever the case may be, it seems to be working. I've gotten quite a few thank you emails, Implausible Nature is linked on dozens of other Warhammer 40k websites around the internet, and the daily hits on the website are steadily increasing (up to about 800 a day on average now).

While all of this is amazing, I don't do it for the personal glory and recognition. It isn't about stroking my ego or pretending that I'm the best Black Templar player in the world. Simply put, I'm probably not. Even so, I'm damn good with my army of choice (BT obviously) and know them like the back of my hand. While I don't have any actual proof of this yet (I intend to earn myself some credibility at this year's Nova Open), readers should have the ability to decipher good advice from the bad. Especially when I take great pains to show why certain advice isn't the best way of doing things.

This leads me into my next important thing of note: I am a competitive player and I play to win. This is a game, and while I mostly enjoy the hobby aspect of it, games are meant to be won. With that being said, games are also created to provide enjoyment for those playing it. That means that it isn't in my nature to take my hardest list to my LGS, pick some random new player, and smoke the living day-lights out of them. That isn't fun for me, and certainly isn't fun for them. Being a competitive player does not mean I'm a douche. It doesn't mean I throw out sportsmanship in the pursuit of winning at all costs (WAAC). I've been accused of it and its a bunch of crap.

So what does competitive gaming mean to me then? In it's basest form, it means I take all of the tactical knowledge, list building philosophies, and experience I have and combine them to create the most efficient and optimized gaming experience I can. There are things that I'll never do in a game, simply because those tactics simply do not work in a tournament environment. You also see this most visibly in my army lists. They are "spammy", boring, and in some cases, not adherent to the BT "fluff". In most cases (not all), redundancy like this is what needs to be done to be successful. It might be distasteful for some players who find more enjoyment in the background and feel of the army, but the fact remains, armies are more effective in this style of list building. While they may not find fun in these types of armies, I most definitely do. Every player is different and I don't buy into the belief that repetitive units make an army list boring to play. Its the player's attitude towards the game that makes a list enjoyable or not. I just happen to find far more enjoyment playing tournament-style games against like-minded players, who also build their armies for peak efficiency. Pitting each others competitive gaming against each other is the ultimate test of skill and I can find no other greater thrill in our game than a close-fought battle to the finish.

Unfortunately, most players don't know how to do this in a tournament environment. And that is what I'm here to do, teach effective competitive gaming to players. There are so few places to learn how to compete effectively in a competitive environment, and fewer still with a specific focus on a particular army. That is my niche. If someone wants to know how to completely optimize their BT army list for a tournament, I do my best to teach them how. Players can email me for list reviews, tactical advice, or whatever. A player can go to innumerable other online resources for advice on casual gaming. If that is all you care about, then those places are perfect and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But some players want something more in their gaming and that is why Implausible Nature exists.

Sometimes it takes a different perspective for a person to view things in new ways. This isn't a bad thing. I provide that for players and give them the opportunity to see into my style of gaming. If they decide that it isn't for them, all the power to them. I don't force my ideas on anyone, I can only guide and give advice where it is asked. No one has to implement what I say into their games or army lists. It is much like going to school. Most primary schools teach you how to survive in the real world with a basic set of information. This can be likened to casual resources like forums. But if you want to become an expert in a specific area or field, you need to go to college to learn what you need in a much more detailed fashion. Implausible Nature is the next step in competitive gaming, much like college is to primary school. It teaches the casual player how to become effective in a tournament environment.

It is also important to note my target audience. I live and play in the United States, where tournaments generally are not comped. With the growing popularity of creating legitimate competitive tournaments here in the USA, these ideas have begun to spread to other areas around the world, most notably the United Kingdom. So that is who will find the most use out of all of this information: those who do not play in tournaments with comp restrictions. I have to ensure that the information on Implausible Nature is applicable to the widest audience as possible. Unfortunately, I simply cannot do anything for those who have to play under comp restrictions. As I don't play under them myself, I cannot legitimately say what is good or not good under their rules. Comp changes the entire game and doesn't fall under what I would call "competitive" gaming. My armies would not be good in comp tournaments, but on that same token, comp-inspired army lists would not be effective in a non-comp environment. But I understand their reasons for instituting comp, even if I don't agree with them. I'm not here to judge, just know that I give all advice assuming the player doesn't play under a comp system.

So when you're reading Implausible Nature, keep all of this in mind. I am a competitive player who is trying to teach that play-style to my fellow gamers. I don't believe myself to be the "end all, be all" or some Black Templars pariah. But I do believe that my advice deserves consideration at the very least, even if your goal isn't to become a tournament goer. I am simply a differing perspective on our codex and the Warhammer 40k game. Take what you feel is valuable and leave the rest if that is what you wish to do. :D

13 Comments

Th!rdeye

1/29/2011 05:19:09 am

I understand your motives Sir Laeroth,

I do not like these shooty lists for fluff reasons, but the fact stands.

A Black Templar Close Combat list will NEVER be as "winny" as a Gunline. Due to our small combat squads that can take a special and heavy, among other things with other units.

Not to say CC lists cannnot be tournament winners. I still firmly believe that, but those gunlines are just NASTY and will kick ass more often than the CC.

In the end it comes down to tactics, luck of the dice, and who your opponent is.

And of course play style. Play how you want. As long as the Black Templar are purging the galaxy of xeno scum, we should all be happy. :)

-Josh

Algesan link

1/29/2011 04:36:26 pm

If there is any "problem" with how you are building lists, then the people who are offended should go talk to the source of their "problem": GW itself.

If GW wasn't in the business of changing their game systems so people would have to buy more books and more models from GW, then there wouldn't be so many changes that make a list "unfluffy" to stay competitive.

Cory

1/30/2011 03:06:31 am

I think your lists are extremely effective but at a lot of comped tournaments you'd be slapped with a resubmit or automatically lose all comp points. I won't debate comp too much but I will point out one positive... Variety! You see far more different armies, there's always going to be blood angels players razorback spamming and stuff like that but it gives a good player the opportunity to take a hard list and come out on top of those players with lists such as your DDP and predator/land speeder spam list (forgot the name).
In a comped tourney, roll annihilation, come up against a decent army, things don't go well and you lose... you can forget placing unless you get full points in every other area :P
BUT your lists are uncomped and since you're going to be playing others with so called 'heinous' lists then go for it. I didn't realise how competitive BTs were until I read this site. Sure stelek makes great lists but I've always just looked at them, shaken my head and given it no thought.

Too bad 11 drop pods cost an arm and a leg or I'd give that list a go for a laugh against a few people I know who think they're big shots and Templars are rubbish!
Oh and one question... Did I see your emperors champ in a command squad? I thought it was a no no :P
have you got a section with any of your models up?

1/30/2011 04:53:00 am

Cory, mouse over "Home", it will give you a drop down with "Painting and Modeling".

I need some education though, where do I see rules for these "comp" tournaments that penalize you for bringing in rules legal lists?

1/30/2011 01:41:33 pm

Lol I found the pictures just after I posted :P

comp is different in every tournament, sometimes it is peer judged by how hard you see your opponents list to be (clearly the worst way as there is too much bias) or sometimes there is a judging panel.
Stuff like tactical squads would be a soft choice, something like 9 obliterators would pull a lists score down. It's like having a golf handicap in a way. No comp tournaments down here are far and few between.
I'll try and fish around for a few player packs for you to look over from comped tournaments later when I'm not on my phone

Marshal Laeroth (Admin) link

1/30/2011 03:40:26 pm

Don't get me wrong Cory, your email prompted me to think for a couple days about how I wanted to respond to it and was one of the reasons I posted this blog entry. It is definitely NOT an attack on you.

I just felt it was necessary to clear the air about how Implausible Nature was ran, because there are quite a few players that play under comp and my lists are distasteful to them. I can understand why when you've been playing under a comp system so long, but when you've not been subjected to it, you see things from a different perspective.

That's why I try to stay away from Comp vs No-Comp arguments. I don't play under comp, so I cannot accurately give an opinion on it other than an outsider's perspective (which leads me to dislike it). Much like you are with my lists. And that is fine. Just knowing that there are other perspectives out there that don't see eye-to-eye with you is important (myself included). And hence why I made this post, to let people know why I do what I do. :)

1/30/2011 03:44:48 pm

And by the way, no. The EC doesn't attach to the Command Squad. He joins one of the Crusader Squads. :)

1/31/2011 05:42:03 am

Ugh, I've already run into some "comp" attitude then. At least the part where it goes: "You can't do that, show me the rule where you can do that. I don't believe it, that just isn't "the way 40k is played" (TM)". When the true underlying issue is that whatever it is means they cannot sit back, snooze and steamroller in the same old way.

The only thing I find more annoying is when rules from different sections about a different game mechanic or even from a different codex are pulled in for a rules interpretation. The justification: "Well, you just don't understand how GW games work."

1/31/2011 08:49:38 am

Not entirely. Comp tournaments usually mean things like Sportsmanship scores, Painting scores, "Comp" scores, and finally, Battle prowess scoring.

They are usually combined into one, with your actual battle score playing less of a part in your final score than Sportsmanship, Comp, and Painting does. So for example, if you went 6-0 at a tournament, you'd think you're the tournament winner right? You're usually wrong if playing in a comp tournament. Someone along the way got hurt that you beat them so scored you poorly on Sportsmanship...even if you were just fine to play against.

Or for example, if you took my lists to a comp tournament, it would not under the comp restrictions. I don't think AUS has an official "system", but Sweden does. It basically amounts to how "gamey" your list seems. If there is spam of any kind, you automatically get thrown under the bus. If you list seems unfluffy, you get points taken off of your final score (when its basically up to each person's perspective anyway...maybe I think my list is fluffy). If you take specific arrangements of units that are classified in a mysterious power-combo, you get a comp point hit.

Most comp tournaments I know have a 100-point scale. Each unit is scored based on a before established point chart. If armed a certain way, or you take too small of a unit, you will get minused points from that beginning total. There are other restrictions like not having the same unit more than twice for troops or take a point hit, no duplicates of the other FOC sections if you don't want to lose points, etc. When you finally get your list done, you cannot fall below a certain number (50 I think?) or you have to resubmit your lists until its higher. Then if you do pass approval, you get comp scored based on how close you are to the starting 100 points. Obviously, for comp, you want to be as close to 100 as possible to get the full points.

That is a very generic and basic look at comp...and I might be mixing the Swedish and Aussie systems a bit. lol! Its basically trying to prevent tournament armies in non-comped tournaments from being played in lieu of more background-oriented armies.

1/31/2011 11:18:59 am

Yeah you're mixing systems. We have several but there not quiet as harsh as that. We have rules like if you score someone poorly for sportsmanship you get a please explain from the judging panel. Bringing painted armies gives you points etc
If you put heaps of work into an army and drop a game you can still score very well

1/31/2011 11:24:56 am

See why I'm a poor authority on comp gaming? lol!

Admittedly, all accounts say that the Swedish comp system says that its a terrible beast to behold. Its like changing the entire game. :O

2/1/2011 12:10:34 am

I shotgun blasted the issue a bit harshly, but if you look at your description, it looks like there are a lot of subjective evaluations in there, which opens up "the way 40k is played (TM)" door for trouble.

Now, that being said, I don't have a problem with some of the restrictions you mentioned for a specific tournament/game. Little or no duplication in a FOC slot? That sounds like fun.

I'm planning on suggesting a 1k random partner 3 game tournament at my LGS. You bring your 1k list, names get drawn from a hat before each round with rules for no duplication of partners (or opponents so far as it possible). Then fight.

I'd like to add some fear & loathing by requiring say, three different focus lists to also be randomly drawn before each game, but I'm not sure how to do that fairly. A panel could do it, but that one gets to be subjective.

For example, I change all me BP/CCW armed Templar into Bolter Templar. Did I just go from "assaulty" to "shooty"? I don't think so, but I could see people arguing that...

BTMaster

8/9/2011 08:20:32 am

Aweome website, wish I found this a long time ago. Your writings definetly have me breaking my current molds on thinking with the game and how I build my lists. Great work brother!

Examining my motives!

Leave a Reply.

Laeroth's Blog

Archives